Follow us on social

Shutterstock_488966959-scaled

GOP lawmakers move to expose foreign money in US think tanks

To root out outside influence of our foreign policy, a new bill would make make certain disclosures mandatory for first time.

Analysis | Washington Politics

New legislation introduced by three Republican members of Congress would set a new bar for transparency in funding from think tanks receiving foreign funding. The legislation — “Think Tank and Nonprofit Influence Disclosure Act of 2021” — aims to “root out foreign funding behind America’s policy research institutions” by requiring disclosure of foreign governments and foreign political parties that contribute in excess $50,000 per year to think tanks.

The requirement for think tanks to disclose their foreign sources of funding is particularly focused on revealing the extent of Chinese government-linked funding of think tanks, but the bills sponsors — Reps. Lance Gooden (R-Texas), Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), and Jim Banks (R-Ind.) — emphasized that the extent of foreign influence in U.S. think tanks is a far reaching problem. 

“Experts believe there are numerous foreign governments backing American think tanks and nonprofits, and that the Chinese Communist Party and Russian government are among those who seek to influence U.S. policymakers in this way,” said a press release from Gooden’s office.

The Republican bill closely closely reflects the policy recommendations in last year’s report by Ben Freeman, director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy, which found that $174 million in foreign funding went to top U.S. think tanks between 2014 and 2018, and advised that  “think tanks should be required, by law, to publicly disclose funding from foreign powers.”

A Responsible Statecraft and American Prospect investigation in January found that the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which Wilson is a member, was regularly briefed by experts affiliated with think tanks that refuse to provide transparency into their funding sources. 

Of the 237 think tank–affiliated witnesses who spoke before the House Foreign Affairs Committee over the past two congresses, under 30 percent of them appeared on behalf of institutions that fully disclose their major donors. 


(shutterstock/ Kenishirotie)
Analysis | Washington Politics
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.